click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130107
20130115
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2
unattractive, the obama administration needs to see if there is a path through which it can pressure iran to make a deal. in a thoughtful essay in the current issue of "foreign affairs" the columbia scholar jurvis points out that this kind of coercive diplomacy, at least from washington, has rarely worked. he points out in panama, 1989, iraq, 1990, serbia, 1998, afghanistan, 2001 and iraq, 2003, washington tried sanctions pressure and the threat of force to get leaders to change course, it didn't work. and washington had to make good on its threat to go to war. with north korea, coercive diplomacy also failed, but in this case, washington decided against military action choosing, instead, to contain the regime. making coercive diplomacy requires a mix of threats and promises. with regard to iran, the administration has made the threats plenty of times. with clarity and credibility. but while the sticks have been handled shrewdly, the carrots have not. the united states is unable to define for itself or for the world what would be an acceptable deal and, most importantly, what it is willin
because we have some confidence that the obama administration, if it comes to it, we'll do it. if it's necessary. a lot of the people who supported president obama said, "mark my words. he is a man of his word, he does this quite seriously." then he turns around and appoints perhaps the most prominent skeptic of any kind of military intervention in iran as his defense secretary. if you're sitting in israel, you're wondering just how reliable is the united states and maybe we should go it alone. so, for that reason alone, simply the appointment of chuck hagel is going to make the israelis more skiddish and perhaps more prone to act. >> here's the irony. who said that military action against iran could prove catastrophic? that was robert gates. our former defense secretary. who said that it could embroil us in a conflict that we can forget? that was leon panetta. it was true, bret, i think you are right that we need the military option on the table as hagel has repeatedly said. that does not mean we can't have a public conversation in this country about the tremendous dangers that war
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2